Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 04 January 2021 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E4B3A0C99 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 04:21:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Smgc5S7ZUlA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 04:21:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1B533A0C97 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 04:21:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id m25so63766234lfc.11 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 04:21:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QwnNnvtMi4Fa0XrjeRFngK9I49opHtQ64+mfYDE8eQg=; b=2CoBT2JQR1pxTMUkidzZ1MUaLX7pYfLpYNCZjtFQcscKdLE0vtFIBUYEapDfdtgO3R 6VDI2t/klodrE8rRp089cMy0X8Bt005nQ73P6OAj9ZqdrMOgH+pUeTJsoM1V1NNFNuyt Lr+GwNawxHxT6Ilq/l3zKja0YmTJBTY/AI7Ticarv6iCzj5J6be7Ri0GPG+s3TiUYmH8 0qfYZIj39YVsso/DPRWdp/DpDBBRAqho7RAu28SdcGzJDGyHzMaD2CUBJYkHZ0U0USUV J2zaoLx2C0Orguj1yifv8CrHmGNJvcdXbiwsh1pnVxnFkVgVYpm+C3S9xc6Nm6PcSxUm 1Oig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QwnNnvtMi4Fa0XrjeRFngK9I49opHtQ64+mfYDE8eQg=; b=SQ7j3pw9LjLbWQrZ66I8RV5dlK5DQ1VU+AsvGiy8bNoElXNnMHg6U1Ejjbmnjp8WNq hfug8xl2mlG195KGvlfJL0SHmcL4IyuTwZvTXvaIeuJ/kaNSdqNkXi9xYR3BlZalU6N3 HeOrZ2xJ6QyEjwkgi/LxQ/VYg4WPqSgOrRZ0tjLMAqMJcXOsWJLD3LtJIkZytWSRuBur lVN3BUNeqAfjkt8h4ZsXSl94ezZ7DTNeeWKNEFr7zaOIarAl31j5/h+CuFhMrLfaMYcT ILWuBzG7gdWo3vKwtBqfhZgzO9BXQNYok+HOc+KgiV4Y/sSTDr3GyVVbpiw7TpSYAdL/ Hpog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53151u8HPAnhF8DHvCN+M1anzXMV+u0qDvVDEEhUV2QItL0YDfN1 ++7t/IfBdDlkqpWI1q8qP2x1PMo/WL6uKzSl9+LvrQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzGCX+oVTCGw1zI0B2Xhhj8uvfr07Ec8x2nf44NtqEb7YGCns6RxoJSHHUV5m+hBL78pJfBUBEdhnJwtTJQPgk=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:155d:: with SMTP id 29mr33836058ljv.3.1609762906151; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 04:21:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADZyTkn1QuvjencR8+wVtQ9bzQHJT9JXXNku1LPr3YRmRt4KQg@mail.gmail.com> <2E8229BE-E764-4C29-A258-8C469717E38A@nohats.ca> <CABcZeBMr5Muijx5V7Se1UcxTB9DbAzF1iXZb7_FzEGfw982x8w@mail.gmail.com> <65e3288d-bdfe-ff10-2fbc-63a5d2dd9508@cs.tcd.ie> <797AAE77-2D50-4189-81D8-44BA495146F5@icann.org> <546e60c6-b109-8552-dfb4-7d3ba2ecbc71@cs.tcd.ie> <E58B4013-9491-43ED-83C9-250FF7647570@icann.org> <0746397c-ed85-429c-ff6e-a4a559520e86@cs.tcd.ie> <487928351.1557.1609759876775@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <487928351.1557.1609759876775@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 04:21:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNG1ACEiHg+JFnpwsY_QwLrhwP7BxXJBRBPM0SXpKFctA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000031bdbf05b8122269"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/H9MYspE-F0RN5Sn1mFkRqB-dzV8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 12:21:50 -0000

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 3:31 AM Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=
40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>
>
> > Il 01/01/2021 19:42 Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> ha
> scritto:
> >
> >
> > Hiya,
> >
> > On 01/01/2021 17:58, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > > The WG has already adopted the revised GOST document as a WG item;
> > > what you are proposing (if the current use is negligible) would be in
> > > the opposite direction.
> > I wasn't "proposing" that, just posing it as a possible
> > option that might or might not be sensible to consider
> > depending on the facts relating to usage if/when we can
> > get 'em. Absent usage information, I'm not at all sure
> > whether or not any change from the status quo is warranted.
>
> We could ask the proponents of new algorithms for information on current
> or expected usage. However, if adoption is relevant to any kind of decision
> on what to do with an algorithm proposal, this should better be formalized
> somewhere and applied evenly to all algorithms that may appear in the
> future. Personally, I think that some expectation of adoption would be
> useful not to clutter the list of algorithms, but the threshold should be
> quite low.
>
> Also, as the IETF is the global SDO for DNS, it should make sure to
> encompass the needs of all Internet communities around the world. If a
> local community wants or needs for any reason to use a "globally
> non-standard" algorithm, there should be ways for this to happen without
> asking them to prove adoption of that algorithm on a global scale. Eric's
> points on fragmentation, implementation burden, potential incompatibilities
> are valid, but they should play out at usage level, not at the
> standardization one.


This seems to conflate standardization with code point assignment.
Standards are recommendations and our recommendation is that people use
particular algorithms. As the example of TLS shows, we can allow that
without standardizing those algorithms.

-Ekr